THE

LIBERTARIAN

ENTERPRISE

Untitled

If I had the Constitution of our nation to do all over again, there
are some things I would do much differently.

It occurs to me, after much contemplation of the matter, that where
the founders of the United States of America foundered in their
efforts, was in the substance of the government they brought into
existence, rather than in the style.

The founders were not honest with themselves: they would not see that
ordinary men can be just as dastardly as the common criminal - given
half a chance. The anti-federalists demanded that certain safeguards
be employed, that certain absolute limits be emphatically stated (as
in the Bill of Rights), and that the limits otherwise would not be
adhered to in the face of other pronouncements that authorized
overriding power in other circumstances.

The Federalists were seeking power to counter power. They figured
that a nation needed a strong central government to overcome external
threats as that which they had faced previously. Their error was in
the essential composition, and distribution of those powers. The
powerful men of the period were unable to 'think outside the box',
and emulated those aspects of other existing governments, with the
classical aspects of the Greek and Roman period governments. They
never gave Jefferson or Paine much consideration beyond the bare
essentials necessary to achieve a working consensus.

Thus we are left to contemplate what really honest and limited
government we might have gotten, were they not so pressed for time -
given their circumstances and the period in which they lived.

We are left with a series of contradictions, which when taken in
their whole, allow for the wholesale slaughter of the liberties which
the document of the Constitution was supposedly enacted to prevent.
In everyplace we look, in the U.S. Constitution, we see powers
enabling the government to act as it sees fit in the face of whatever
situation it may find itself, the amendments be damned. This needs to
change.

There are three all-important concerns for a 'government of the
people', which if not properly addressed, will ultimately result in
its destruction:

Its laws;
Its ability to defend itself;
Its ability to properly sustain itself (tax).

In the nature of law -

The laws of a true Republican nation exist for only one purpose - the
preservation of liberty: life, self-determination, and protection of
property rights, i.e., the protection of natural rights has the
highest priority, and above all else it is the prima facie reason for
any government of 'the people'.

Any law which pretends to accomplish the aforementioned (especially
those terribly spiteful things, which while having no life of their
own, are able to snuff-out the essence of life itself from the
hapless citizen minding his own business, and in no way offering real
offence to his fellows), and in fact diminishes those liberties in
positive law, is a fraud; and any fraud of a law must be removed, and
its perpetrators punished to recompense the disenfranchised, and
forever forbidden to serve in the name of the people, in any
capacity.

Therefore, the body of law - or Corpus juris - ought be small and
compact, yet broad in its coverage sufficient to lend itself to
almost any application it is appealed to. It is self evident that if
ten simple commandments were sufficient enough to be used as the
basis for most of the Mosaic laws, then in consonant fashion a modern
government ought well enough be able to fashion a simple set of
edicts based directly upon the natural laws, and any judgement
rendered in a court would rest upon the rightful determination of
tort, with each case standing by itself.

In the nature of defence -

When a government hires out men in a permanent way to act as soldiers
to its polity, then it has in effect contracted nothing more than
mercenaries. When those men act in concert to the orders of their
superiors, they do not do so with their own fellow citizen's benefit
in mind: they are mindless to their task. The only accounting for
wrongs done - if ever, is long after any harm has been done. And, it
is very important to remember that he who rules also determines what
is considered a 'wrong'.

Therefore, the business of the defence of a nation best resides
properly with the citizenry itself, and not with any cadre of
mercenaries, who will in the fit of a moment, decimate their fellow
citizens at the whim of a superior. And, if the citizens are properly
appraised of an external conflict, they are less likely to seek the
invasion of another nation's shores for a vague or esoteric political
goal. If the stated purpose for the militia of the nation is for
nothing more than it's defence and for not for any other purpose,
military adventurism will not exist as a possibility. If the polity
cannot be subverted to ulterior intent, then the efforts of special
interests will go wasted.

When the citizenry of a nation is made to understand that no cavalry
is going to come and save their bacon in time of need, they will
resort to either paying for mercenaries, or mounting their own
defence, in the name of a militia. For the lazy or unprincipled, the
option is to surrender to tyranny. Please note that when hiring
mercenaries, the option for tyranny is just a few steps away, since
the mercenaries and their leaders have control of every major
armament.

In the defence of the nation, all men and women of legal age (16
years) would be required to spend a certain minimum time in their
state's militia, on a yearly basis until age 50, receiving both basic
and advanced military training, with members required to maintain
proficiency in small arms use, by constant practice, and to maintain
said arms in readily deployable condition at their place of
residence, with a minimum specified amount of ammunition and field
rations held in reserve for ready deployment.

Those members whom excelled in their field would be offered to serve
in the select militia of the nation's ready forces, and as the
trainers of the reserve militia. Their payment for services would be
directed by the US Congress, while the payment for service during
periods of duty in their own states as reserve militia would be
defrayed by the state wherein they reside.

As part of their sworn oath to duty, the select militia would be
required to take an oath, that under penalty of death, their acts
will never be against their fellow citizens - except in self-defence,
and that in no case are they to execute an order from any superior
which they know to be illegal, or for which will result in the injury
or death of their fellow citizens.

In the nature of taxation -

A true republic with minimal government, is one with the very least
ability to raise taxes, or impose any law that allows for the raising
of revenue except for those very minimally required, and absolutely
necessary functions of a government: The defence of all liberties,
the defending of all borders against attack, the protection of its
citizens from unlawful acts (under international law) by tyrants in
other places, and the positive acts which foster and promote general
commerce between the states, the tribal Indian nations, and foreign
nations.

That said, then the current constitution fails in this regard, in
that the congress may - with little impedance - raise whatever monies
it so desires with little more than a simple majority of both houses,
and the consent of the the Executive (coconspirator). This,
absolutely not to mention the laws it deems necessary to infringe the
liberties of the citizens at the behest of whatever proponent however
large or small, in the face of Constitutional prohibitions to the
contrary.

And worse, it may allocate and appropriate monies in whatever way it
pleases, no matter the outcry of the people, or their outrage. In
short, there is little accountability, and even less effective
remonstration on the part of the people. The solution is for the
congress to have neither the general authorization to appropriate or
disburse those monies, nor invent new ways to spend them; or make
laws in the vacuum of the isolation and independence of
accountability, or in offence to the liberties of the people. If what
you do cannot have effect, then no amount of money or compensation
can have affect either.

Further, the answer is to negate having a separate and sovereign
central government, with its own permanent congress. There would be
only one sovereignty: The Constitution of the United States in all
matters of constitutional law; and where no power is specifically and
narrowly defined by that Constitution, the powers would remain with
the states, and the people respectively, and for which there would be
no review by any court or law, except for breach of powers or of
individual liberties. The true form of 'no double jeopardy' would
then exist. For any person to be tried under a state's laws, the
federal statutes would have to be applied as well, excepting that no
federal law would diminish a liberty held in greater esteem by a
state.

Any federal statute which is made in pursuance to protection of any
aspect of liberty -under natural law - hinted at in the Bill of
Rights, would automatically become a state statute as well. Thus a
person would be prosecuted under only one law, and not by separate
jurisdictions of state, and then federal. The application of law
would encompass every aspect, both state and federal: One people, one
land, one law.

To achieve the close ideal of the citizen having control over his
government, in whatever guise it might find itself, I propose that
those representatives whom serve in the federal legislature be
appointed by election in their own states legislatures - from among
those already in office in those state legislature, thus resulting in
a true conference of the states. But in no case would any state have
more representation than any other, and in this way, the more
populous states would not trump or override the interests of other
states: a true 'mind your own damned business' state of affairs.

The period of the assemblage of (and appointment to) the Federal
legislature - not to exceed 4 months (except in time of actual
declared war, or for the matter of impeachment of whatever federal
official), would then recess and return to their respective states
for consultation and legislative decision upon the current - if any -
referrals to the states for their yea's or nay's. The terms of actual
assemblage for the state and federal legislatures would alternate so
as to prevent concurrent assemblages. In no case would any person be
given compensation for serving in the federal Congress, but merely
provided with an office and staff, and temporary lodgings with travel
expenses.

The Federal legislature in the name of the Congress would determine
what level of appropriation is necessary for a department to operate
efficiently, whereupon with an 80 percent vote of approval in both
houses of the Congress, it would then submit that to the legislatures
of the several states, who would either by eighty percent of their
number, approve of the appropriation, or deny by a lack of that vote;
the people in any state upon deciding contrariwise, would by special
election, counter the vote by an appropriate minimum 80 percent show
and vote to the contrary. The Congress upon receiving 80 percent of
the approval of the states, would authorize the disbursement to the
affected department.

The President would have no official say in the matter at all, other
than to submit to the Congress a yearly budget request, detailing
among other things, the expenditures of the present government,
projected shortfalls, and suggested improvements.

In this style, the Federal Congress serves as a research and
validation organ, through which all requests for monies must pass.
The states in-turn, receive those 'educated' pronouncements and act
accordingly. No federal law, rule, or regulation would ever see the
light of day, nor would any treaty pass but with the fullest consent
of the states - through the people. And all laws, rules, and
regulations would exist for no longer than a maximum of (5) years,
and expire without the necessary debate, and passage by 80 percent
vote of the states legislatures.

Every treaty would have to be ratified again at periods of not more
than (10) years, and no treaty would ever in any way, manner, fashion
or form have affect in whatever way upon the rights of the people
while within any area where the Constitution, and the laws of the
United States have effect, and in any other place where there is not
a recognized external sovereignty - of a real nation, and not a
quasi-governmental body.

No rule or regulation (made by any department, state or federal),
would have application upon failure of reenactment, the enabling body
of law from whence either derived its power to exist. Further, any
penalty accorded as a result of prior breaches of said failed law,
would cease to have effect, and all penalties, forfeitures, or other
instrument of law, would be directly recompensed.

In all cases, the source of funding is the user of the service
provided by the specific Department - and no other entity. The states
would be the primary source of all monies to operate those Federal
Departments which directly affect their interaction, such as the
Interior, Justice, and Treasury. The States would also be directly
responsible for funding Defence in proportion to the census of the
enumeration. In no way would monies be collected from the states to
be redistributed backto the states. The monies collected would flow
in one direction only, and only in the absolute need of the
department(s) it was collected for.

No general tax would ever be allowed to be suggested by either the US
Congress, or be enacted by any state or other political subdivision
thereof, where the United States Constitution has effect. Further, no
tax collected would ever favor or punish by either inclusion or
exclusion; single out any person or group of people; be allotted
either directly or indirectly as a condition of possession (no Real
Estate taxes), ownership, purchase, use, manufacture, sale, or
condition of either residence or non-residence.

By way of clarification, 'user fees' would pay for all local
services, whereas the taxes levied at the state level, would cover
both the state and federal obligations. The state tax would be mainly
levied on sales. In this fashion, all states would have approximately
the same level of taxation, per capita.

With neither a general power to lay and collect taxes, nor the
ability to disburse it by favor, there would be no ability to exert
any undue or corrupt influence. In every case, the need would be
placed before the people for their evaluation as to need, and their
acceptance of the requirement, and where a tax is instituted, the
people would be given the opportunity to vote on the matter, and with
a vote of not less than 80 percent of the registered voters, i.e., a
minimum of eighty percent of all of the registered voters must show
at the poles and vote in the affirmative for a passage of the
proposal. All taxes raised would be for a specific purpose, not to
exceed 2 years - or less, and be for no other purpose.

In essence, the only thing permanent in the new paradigm of
government, would be the people's rights.

Next
to advance to the next article, or
Previous
to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 81, July 17, 2000.